Resolve To Serve No MoreA Rebuttal to Matthew Reece, Part 3

In a previous article, I argued that violent revolution does nothing to advance the cause of liberty. In response, there was a lengthy rebuttal from Matthew Reece at the Zeroth Position. I addressed the first part of that article, on the historical argument, here. The second part focused more on the logical criticisms Reece presented against my case. Now, in Part 3 of this rebuttal, I will take on Reece’s argument for revolution as the “only way” to obtain liberty.

To begin his case for revolution, Reece declares that the definition of the concept “leaves room for a stateless system which would be brought about by an anti-political revolution and maintained by a culture of resistance to any effort to reintroduce statism.” The issue is that this “anti-political revolution” and “culture of resistance” are only a path to ongoing conflict and mass chaos.

Reece starts off with criticizing non-violent means of resistance to the state. On many of these, particularly electoral politics, he may have a point. But he fails to understand the power of other options. In particular, I will note his arguments on agorism and civil disobedience as being very wrong-headed.

He contends that there are “limitations of scale” to agorism; that “there are some industrial endeavors which simply cannot be performed entirely outside of Leviathan’s watchful eye”. Now, while it is true that, for instance, starting up a car factory would fall under the risk of government action, it is not inherently true that government is magically aware of the activities of even large scale anti-state endeavors, nor is it true that there is necessarily a central point of failure. Reece cites the case of Ross Ulbricht as evidence the state can react to agorism quickly, but seems to utterly fail to understand the power of decentralization and removal of central points of control here. Ulbricht may be in jail, but hundreds of copycats and better alternatives have taken his place.

We also see into the mind of Matt Reece here, when he declares that “a black market can even be counterproductive toward the goal of libertarian revolution, granting people the means to suffer evils rather than allowing them to face the stark choice of revolution or death.” Here it seems he would rather people die in the face of the state than work around it to survive and even thrive. How perverse is such a sentiment!

He continues, stating that:

Finally, agorism is actually not a non-violent strategy as originally conceived. Konkin wrote that in the final stage of his strategy, black-market agencies use force to defend against the state, and this is the sort of violent revolution being defended here.

But is this the sort of “violent revolution” being defended here? For Konkin’s approach did involve violence, but it was strictly that of self-defense and well after a libertarian society had been almost fully established. Neither of these things are true in a “storm Washington and rout the bastards” type argument that seems so prevalent when actually discussing the concept of revolution. Nor does such an action seek to “replace” the current power structure – only resist its imposition upon people who choose to defend themselves. (In this sense, how can it really be called a “revolution”?) Moreover, this is – of necessity – in an environment where people are generally accepting of such anarchic society, not the current society where resistance to the state, even by a major corporation like Apple, is demonized on nearly every front.

On civil disobedience, Reece claims that:

multitudes of demonstrators were violently victimized by government agents. Remaining peaceful in the face of violent oppression only ensures that aggressors are empowered, victims are weakened, and onlookers are given an example of government violence as a solution to the “problem” of disobedience.

It’s true that civil disobedience carries with it risk of suffering violence. But in many ways, it is far superior to risk that violence without retaliation than it is to escalate it with further violence. In the February Revolution in Russia, the revolt was obtained mostly through non-violence because the military men whose task it was to subdue the populace refused to fire into a crowd of non-violent protestors, many of whom were women. On the other hand, escalation to levels of significant violence most often lead to protracted war – where the result is incalculable. To reiterate the quote from Doctor Who I included in my original article ((“The Zygon Inversion”, Doctor Who, 2015)):

When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who’s going to die. You don’t know who’s children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill…

Reece carries on with a comparison of the existence of the state and “power vacuums” to those of physics. Here he simply makes a categorical error. While talk of power vacuums constitutes a common analogy, it is also an inherently false one based on a sociological determinism. From this, Reece draws many erroneous conclusions about the use of force to defend a “partial vacuum”.

He also notes that “the people who carry guns on behalf of the state for the purpose of enforcing the edicts of rulers is rarely more than 1 percent of the population in modern nation-states”. This is precisely true, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. These people will not come in with pistols to match the pistols libertarians might possess, but with tanks and military aircraft and missiles. There is no chance of any sort of determined minority resistance prepared to use violence leading any sort of peaceful existence with this threat constantly hanging overhead like the Sword of Damocles.

His case is briefly summarized in this paragraph:

The revolutionaries can operate almost entirely in secret, while at least some government agents and buildings must be identifiable in order to carry out their functions. While a statist revolutionary movement would require an overt presence, people who simply wish to rid their communities of statism do not. And contrary to Underhill, peace talks are not inevitably required at the end of such a conflict; in fact, the approach of an anti-political revolution followed by a culture of resistance makes such talks impossible. At the conclusion of a decentralized revolution, there is no leader with whom the statists may negotiate for peace. They must simply stop committing crimes under color of law and make restitution for the crimes they have committed or be physically removed from the libertarian-controlled area.

He claims the revolutionaries can operate almost entirely in secret. I don’t know here if he is unaware of the spying operations of modern states, uncomprehending of the amount of force needed to bring to bear to resist a state military operation, or whether he is just too drawn in to the fantasy of taking up arms against the oppressor, but the scenario described here is almost laughable. Further, he talks about a conclusion of this “decentralized revolution”, as if there would be any such conclusion outside of the annihilation of the armed resistance. By creating this long-term “culture of resistance” and relying on operation in secret to engage in guerrilla combat, he’s consigned this group to perpetual warfare as long as the state exists at all. Any attempt to form a peaceful society based on market anarchist principles would be impossible – lives would instead be devoted to engaging in a fruitless violent resistance that could only lead to massive innocent deaths without any achievement of the goal of liberty.

He answers the charge of the technologically superior military by pointing to the idea of guerrilla combat as well as blowback. But this only approaches the problem from the point of view of the anarchist revolutionary. The people would not be so kind as to side with the terrorists in their midst. No worries, Reece claims, we will have the “actions of revolutionaries .. carefully planned to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, as collateral damage plays into the state’s hands”. Certainly. But is he aware that the death of military members and police officers and other government agents, will be viewed as this “collateral damage”. The public does not take kindly to “cop-killers” now. Why would this suddenly change because the action is framed as self-defense by some apparent (to them) sociopaths?

Next, he arbitrarily claims that “the ultimate reason that people are voting on ballots is that they fear the consequences of voting with bullets”. He provides no reason to believe this is true other than that they do not “vote with bullets”. He goes on to say that “[i]f the option of voting with ballots is taken away from them, then the public is left with the options of either living peacefully or trying to perform the crimes of the state themselves”. I can’t think of anything more likely to lead to an acceptance of an authoritarian state than rebels forcibly preventing democratic means of government in a nation where the vast majority believe wholeheartedly in democracy. Not only is this proposed “revolution” by Reece historically a bad idea, he seems from the outset trying to design something that will purposefully incense the state-loving populace to the point of cheering on the destruction of any and all libertarians or anarchists.

In his response to the question of “what protects your revolution from the next one?”, he presents a simple answer: we’ll kill anyone who would resist our system and attempt to reimpose a state. (Presumably, if the rhetoric of Cantwell is any guide, also any leftists or anyone else who disagrees with our values.) This sounds like it would quickly devolve into the chaos of the “anarcho-statists” of Spain ((The Anarcho-Statists of Spain: A Historical, Economic and Philosophical Analysis of Spanish Anarchism, Bryan Caplan, accessed 2/29/2016)) to me. At the very least, it depends on a perpetually violent populace dedicated to the principles in question… which means it is very likely to fall to another revolution based on other ideas that people have accepted.

Similarly, he denies the Iron Law of Oligarchy in his call for a “truly decentralized revolution with no top-down leadership.” While I completely agree that a revolution headed by “a charismatic leader against the state … will yet again fail to solve the problem”, a decentralized resistance is inevitably going to ignore all those special caveats and contentions about “collateral damage” and the like that Reece has already noted would be necessary for his ideal to even work. Moreover, it’s extremely unlikely to ever get started (the only benefit to this thing presented so far).

Finally, he claims that it will be “time” to start when “enough people are willing to carry out a libertarian revolution … more people than that will be helping the revolutionaries but not taking up arms, and more people than that will be speaking favorably of revolution without taking action toward that end.” It seems that this would require a lot of people. Almost as many people, one might think, as would be necessary to simply refuse to cooperate with the state and force it to its knees without violence.

We all agree that “[t]he state is the most evil institution ever devised by humans, and its demise is required in order for humanity to survive and prosper.” Where the disagreement lies is in the idea that resistance without violent revolution constitutes a “position of weakness”. Rather, the state is dependent on the people it oppresses for resources, both via taxation and via the acceptance of state-backed money. Remove these two aspects of the state’s power, and it cannot stand. The power of the state is only derived by the people who support it. In the words of Étienne de la Boetie ((Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Étienne de la Boetie, 1548)):

How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?

[…]

From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

7 comments

I should probably post this on one of your earlier articles about this topic, but I figured that you were more likely to see it if I posted it on the most recent one.

The first thing that I would like to ask is, could it be plausibly argued that the reason that the historical examples that you listed didn’t result in liberty is because they didn’t really have liberty-minded goals? For example, while the Founders had the goal of keeping the government in check, it’s no secret that they viewed the state as a “necessary evil.” It’s also no secret that many of them condoned the practice of slaver (many of them were slave owners). So, in one sense, it could be argued that they _mostly_ accomplished what they set out to do. I don’t know a whole lot about each example that you provided, but I was curious what your thoughts were about this.

On another note, I am curious as to what you would argue is the best response to these types of governments. Don’t take this question as a criticism, I think that you did a good job making your point. I’m just wondering what response could be made by citizens that would be more likely to lead to liberty. I know that one option would be civil disobedience, but I’m somewhat skeptical that such a solution would be feasible when the citizenry is under the rule of a more powerful and evil dictatorship, such as the Third Reich or the U.S.S.R. If I remember correctly, the Nazi regime imprisoned pacifists and others who opposed them (I believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of them). I am also aware of Jews and other underground resistance groups that fought in opposition to the Nazis and assisted the Allies (I’m not referring to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, I’m referring to other examples). I know that neither the resistance groups nor the pacifists brought down the Third Reich (at least, they didn’t do it on their own), but from what little that I have heard, it seems like the resistance groups had a greater effect. But, I’m not the expert, so I’m curious as to your thoughts on it. Thanks.

To the point that many of these historical examples didn’t have liberty-minded goals, I’d agree that this prevents the revolution from succeeding, but even in cases where the revolution was directed towards destroying the state (such as the Russian Revolution) the result was nothing near the goal of the revolutionaries.

As to your second question, I would argue that the best form of resistance is that of civil disobedience. In the end, what needs to change is the people’s willingness to submit to the state. That’s not going to change by a minority engaging in violence against state officials – such activity would only embroil the people in violence which they turn to the state to save them from.

The resistance groups in France, Poland and Belgium may have had a greater effect on the Nazi regime, but only insofar as the Nazi regime was fighting a war on two fronts anyway. Far superior in terms of saving lives and preventing the state from succeeding in its tyranny was the non-compliance of those hiding the Jews from them, as well as the non-compliance of those in the camps. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, for instance, did little to impact the Nazi regime’s plans, while providing a greater excuse for the state to get the compliance of the average subject.

(There’s also some difference between the resistance of occupation turning to guerrilla tactics and that of a revolution, so the analysis I provide here does not fully map to the resistance groups against the Nazi regime. Namely, the violence of a revolution is not started by the state invading a territory, but by the revolutionaries attacking state officials and headquarters. This difference in motivation and origination of violence alters the analysis.)

Altar & Throne

Help Support Altar & Throne

Do you like what you're seeing here? Help support us to keep the content comin'!

Bitcoin:

[coinwidget address="1HKQzRnveG4m4qtB52vwmP4s62MAepJTDD"]

Paypal:

Affiliate

Many of us here at Altar & Throne have had our horizons expanded through Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, and believe in and endorse this product. Join today to get the education you've never received before!